These are reviewed studies whose abstracts concern Glioblastoma. Each describes only what that study reported. This is not a claim by OncoForge that any compound helps or harms Glioblastoma. Most are early lab, animal, or small human studies, and findings often conflict.
Human · observationalMechanismInconclusiveLimited evidenceTier 3 · early human
Cancer cell · Dec 2025 · spatial profiling of glioblastoma specimens
glioblastoma
The authors spatially profiled human glioblastoma specimens. They report uncovering cellular mechanisms that govern the extent of gene expression heterogeneity in malignant cells.
Key findings
- The study performed spatial profiling of glioblastoma specimens.
- The authors uncovered cellular mechanisms that govern the extent of gene expression heterogeneity in malignant cells.
Limitations: Abstract provides no sample size or details on patient cohorts.; Only descriptive spatial profiling of specimens is reported in the abstract; no therapeutic intervention or clinical trial data.; The abstract does not provide mechanistic details, validation experiments, or quantitative results..
AI summary of the abstract, human-reviewed · Jul 2026. Describes what this study reported, not medical advice. View on PubMed
ReviewMechanismReported positivePreclinical onlyTier 1 · lab
Cancer cell · Nov 2025
glioblastoma
This Cancer Cell piece summarizes work by Yang et al. showing that glioblastoma co-opts cholinergic neural circuits. The authors describe mechanisms by which the tumor exploits cholinergic signaling to disrupt the hierarchical organization of brain networks and note that these findings change how we think about tumor–brain interactions and suggest potential therapeutic directions.
Key findings
- Glioblastoma alters normal brain function by hijacking neural circuits.
- Yang et al. elucidate mechanisms by which glioblastoma exploits cholinergic signaling pathways.
- This hijacking disrupts the hierarchical organization of brain networks.
- The analysis reframes tumor–brain interactions and is said to open new therapeutic avenues.
Limitations: Abstract is a short commentary/review and provides no experimental details or methods.; No species, model system, sample sizes, or quantitative results are reported in the abstract.; Unable to assess primary data, study design, or statistical strength from this abstract alone..
AI summary of the abstract, human-reviewed · Jul 2026. Describes what this study reported, not medical advice. View on PubMed
Animal studyMechanismReported positivePreclinical onlyTier 2 · animal
Trends in pharmacological sciences · Nov 2025 · commentary/review of a study
glioblastomabrain neoplasms
This article discusses a study in glioblastoma showing that tumor cells took up more serine. It also reports that limiting serine uptake made chemoradiation work better in preclinical models. The abstract is mainly a commentary on emerging research rather than a full original trial report.
Studied with: chemoradiation.
Key findings
- Tumor metabolism in glioblastoma patients showed increased import of serine.
- Limiting serine uptake enhanced the effectiveness of chemoradiation in preclinical models of glioblastoma.
Limitations: This is not a full original study report; it is a commentary/review-style article.; The abstract does not provide methods, sample size, or quantitative results.; The sensitization finding is preclinical, so human clinical benefit is unproven..
Discusses a metabolic vulnerability in glioblastoma and preclinical chemoradiation sensitization.
AI summary of the abstract, human-reviewed · Jun 2026. Describes what this study reported, not medical advice. View on PubMed · Full text
Human · observationalMechanismMixed resultsLimited evidenceTier 3 · early human
Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · Oct 2025
glioblastoma
The authors analyzed blood, tumor cells, and plasma-derived extracellular vesicles from glioblastoma patients and healthy donors to assess how Tumor Treating Fields (TTFields) affect coagulation-related biology. They report that short-term TTFields exposure prolonged blood coagulation and reduced clot rigidity by decreasing Factor II/FXIII activity and platelet count, while patient-derived GBM cells showed increased tissue factor (TF) abundance and changes in coagulation-related gene expression. Co-culture experiments indicated TTFields modulate pro- and anticoagulant factors and inflammatory pathways in the tumor microenvironment. The study does not report quantitative sample sizes or clinical thromboembolic outcomes.
Studied with: radiochemotherapy.
Key findings
- Short-term TTFields exposure significantly prolongs blood coagulation in GBM patients and healthy donors by altering tissue factor (TF) expression and disrupting the extrinsic coagulation pathway.
- TTFields reduced clot rigidity by decreasing Factor II/FXIII activity and platelet count, without impairing fibrinogen function.
- Patient-derived GBM cells exposed to TTFields exhibited increased TF abundance.
- RNA microarray of GBM cells after TTFields exposure showed upregulation of platelet adhesion marker ITGA2 and downregulation of THBS1.
- TXNIP, described as a coagulation-modulating gene linked to immune regulation, was downregulated after TTFields exposure.
- In an allogeneic co-culture model of patient-derived GBM cells and peripheral blood, TTFields modulated coagulation and immune responses, suggesting rebalancing of pro- and anticoagulant factors and alteration of inflammatory pathways.
Limitations: No sample size or detailed patient cohort characteristics are reported in the abstract.; Study reports short-term exposure effects; duration and long-term consequences are not defined.; Observational and ex vivo/in vitro analyses; causality in patients in vivo is not established.; No clinical outcome data on thromboembolic events or patient-level clinical endpoints are provided.; Findings include mixed pro- and anticoagulant signals (e.g., increased TF in tumor cells vs prolonged blood coagulation), complicating interpretation..
AI summary of the abstract, human-reviewed · Jul 2026. Describes what this study reported, not medical advice. View on PubMed · Full text
Human trialTrialReported positiveModerate evidenceTier 4 · clinicaln = 31
Med (New York, N.Y.) · Sep 2025 · Phase 2, single-arm with case-matched control comparison
This phase 2 clinical trial enrolled 31 patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma after chemoradiation to test adding pembrolizumab to TTFields plus temozolomide. Among 26 patients treated per protocol, median progression-free survival was 12.0 vs. 5.8 months (HR 0.377; p = 0.0026) and median overall survival was 24.8 vs. 14.6 months (HR 0.522; p = 0.0477) compared to case-matched controls. Patients who had biopsy only showed larger PFS and OS benefits than those with maximal resection. Immune analyses suggested TTFields induced a T1IFN-driven clonal T cell expansion while pembrolizumab supported adaptive replacement and sustained T cell activation; severe treatment-related adverse events were reported as 7.5%.
Reported effects: median PFS 12 mo · PFS hazard ratio 0.377 [0.217–0.653], p=0.0026 · +7 more
Studied with: pembrolizumab, temozolomide.
Key findings
- Among 26 patients treated per protocol, median PFS was 12.0 vs. 5.8 months in controls (HR 0.377, 95% CI 0.217-0.653; p = 0.0026).
- Among 26 patients treated per protocol, median OS was 24.8 vs. 14.6 months in controls (HR 0.522, 95% CI 0.301-0.905; p = 0.0477).
- Patients undergoing biopsy had longer PFS (27.2 vs. 9.6 months; HR 0.37, 95% CI 0.16-0.85; p = 0.014) and OS (31.6 vs. 18.8 months; HR 0.4, 95% CI 0.17-0.92; p = 0.023) compared to maximal resection.
- Severe adverse events constituted 7.5% of treatment-related toxicities.
- Immune correlates: TTFields promoted clonal T cell expansion via a T1IFN-driven trajectory, while pembrolizumab supported adaptive replacement of these clones, sustaining T cell activation and memory formation, especially in biopsy-only patients.
Limitations: Small sample size (31 enrolled; 26 treated per protocol).; Phase 2, non-randomized, single-arm design with case-matched controls rather than a randomized control group.; Potential selection or matching biases inherent to case-matched control comparisons.; Follow-up duration not specified in the abstract.; Funded by Novocure (industry support) which may present a conflict of interest..
AI summary of the abstract, human-reviewed · Jul 2026. Describes what this study reported, not medical advice. View on PubMed
ReviewReported positiveModerate evidenceTier 4 · clinical
Expert review of medical devices · Sep 2025 · review
glioblastomabrain neoplasms
This review summarizes tumor treating fields (TTFields), an alternating electric-field therapy for glioblastoma that uses dielectrophoresis to disrupt mitosis in dividing cells. The authors state that clinical trials have shown TTFields added to standard adjuvant treatments significantly improved progression-free and overall survival. They also note unresolved questions about neuropsychological effects and management of postoperative motor deficits and call for further research.
Studied with: standard adjuvant treatments.
Key findings
- TTFields therapy applies alternating electric fields and, via dielectrophoresis, selectively disrupts mitotic processes in replicating cells.
- Clinical trials reported that TTFields significantly improved progression-free and overall survival rates when combined with standard adjuvant treatments.
- Unanswered questions remain about the impact of TTFields on neuropsychological functioning and the management of postoperative motor deficits.
Limitations: This publication is a review rather than primary clinical trial data.; The abstract provides no numeric trial results or detailed quantitative outcomes.; The review notes unresolved clinical questions (neuropsychological effects, motor deficit management), indicating incomplete evidence.; Safety and long-term outcome details are not provided in the abstract..
AI summary of the abstract, human-reviewed · Jul 2026. Describes what this study reported, not medical advice. View on PubMed
ReviewReported positiveModerate evidenceTier 4 · clinical
The oncologist · Feb 2025 · narrative review
glioblastomagrade 4 gliomapediatric central nervous system tumorsbrain metastaseslung cancerovarian cancerpancreatic cancergastric cancerhepatic cancer
This review summarizes Tumor Treating Fields (TTFields), a noninvasive device that delivers alternating electric fields to tumors. It reports mechanisms of action (mitotic disruption, DNA replication/DNA damage response effects, reduced motility, and immune enhancement), notes FDA approval for newly diagnosed and recurrent glioblastoma, and describes clinical data showing efficacy across patient groups, a tolerable safety profile, and correlations between higher device usage/dose and longer survival. The review also highlights promising pilot studies combining TTFields with immunotherapy and radiotherapy and ongoing studies in pediatric patients and other solid tumors.
Studied with: immunotherapy, radiotherapy.
Key findings
- TTFields is a locoregional, noninvasive, portable device that delivers alternating electric fields to tumors through arrays placed on the skin.
- Based on global pivotal randomized phase III clinical studies, TTFields therapy (Optune Gio) is FDA-approved for newly diagnosed and recurrent glioblastoma and CE-marked for grade 4 glioma.
- Multimodal mechanisms include disruption of cancer cell mitosis, inhibition of DNA replication and damage response, interference with cell motility, and enhancement of systemic adaptive immunity.
- Clinical data show efficacy in a broad range of patients with a tolerable safety profile, including high-risk subpopulations.
- New analyses confirmed that overall and progression-free survival positively correlated with increased device usage and dose of TTFields at the tumor site.
- Pilot/early phase clinical studies of TTFields with immunotherapy and with radiotherapy in newly diagnosed GBM have shown promise; new pivotal studies are planned.
- Recent and ongoing studies are evaluating TTFields in pediatric care, other CNS tumors, brain metastases, and several advanced-stage solid tumors (lung, ovarian, pancreatic, gastric, hepatic).
Limitations: This article is a narrative review rather than original research; the abstract does not present new primary numeric results.; Abstract provides no numeric effect sizes, confidence intervals, p-values, or sample sizes for the studies discussed.; Claims about broader tumor types, pediatric use, and combinations are based on pilot/early-phase studies and ongoing research and thus remain preliminary.; Potential for selection or publication bias in the reviewed literature is not addressed in the abstract.; Funding sources and potential conflicts of interest are not reported in the abstract..
The review focuses on TTFields therapy's mechanisms, clinical efficacy/safety data in glioblastoma, and exploratory uses in other CNS and solid tumors.
AI summary of the abstract, human-reviewed · Jul 2026. Describes what this study reported, not medical advice. View on PubMed · Full text
Animal studyReported positivePreclinical onlyTier 2 · animal
Cell · Jan 2025 · preclinical experimental study using retrograde tracing and genetic ablation in glioblastoma models
glioblastomabrain neoplasms
This study used rabies-virus-based retrograde tracing to map neurons connected to glioblastoma in experimental models. The authors found that glioblastoma formed widespread connections with neurons, and that cholinergic neurons promoted invasion. They also reported that radiotherapy increased neuron-tumor connectivity, while blocking neuronal activity together with radiotherapy had greater effects, and that genetic ablation of tumor-connected neurons halted glioblastoma progression in their models.
Studied with: radiotherapy.
Key findings
- Glioblastoma integrated into neural circuits across the brain and showed widespread functional communication.
- Cholinergic neurons were reported to drive glioblastoma invasion.
- Radiotherapy increased neuron-tumor connectivity by increasing neuronal activity.
- Simultaneous neuronal activity inhibition and radiotherapy showed increased therapeutic effects in the models.
- Rabies-mediated genetic ablation of tumor-connected neurons halted glioblastoma progression in the study models.
Limitations: Preclinical animal/model-system study; no human clinical outcomes reported.; The abstract does not provide sample size, effect sizes, or statistical details.; Use of rabies-virus-based tracing and genetic ablation is experimental and not a standard clinical intervention.; Findings are based on glioblastoma models, so generalizability to patients is uncertain..
The study focuses on glioblastoma biology and experimental targeting of neuron-tumor networks, not on a repurposed drug or natural compound.
AI summary of the abstract, human-reviewed · Jun 2026. Describes what this study reported, not medical advice. View on PubMed
ReviewMechanismInconclusiveLimited evidenceTier 4 · clinical
Brain sciences · Jul 2024
glioblastoma
This is a narrative review about neuroinflammation in glioblastoma. The authors summarize components of the tumor microenvironment, emphasize roles of resident and infiltrating inflammatory cells in glioblastoma pathogenesis, aggressiveness, and treatment resistance, and discuss anti-tumor microenvironment interventions as potential therapeutic targets.
Key findings
- Glioblastoma has high morbidity and mortality despite multimodal treatment.
- The tumor microenvironment is dynamic and heterogeneous and contains resident and infiltrating inflammatory cells.
- Inflammatory cells within the tumor microenvironment regulate tumor aggressiveness and treatment resistance.
- Targeting the tumor microenvironment, particularly neuroinflammation, is increasingly recognized as a potential therapeutic approach.
- The review discusses interactions among tumor microenvironment components and potential anti-tumor microenvironment interventions.
Limitations: Review article with no new primary experimental or clinical data reported in the abstract.; Abstract does not specify whether this is a systematic review or a narrative review (possible selection bias).; No quantitative results, specific interventions, or clinical evidence are reported in the abstract..
AI summary of the abstract, human-reviewed · Jul 2026. Describes what this study reported, not medical advice. View on PubMed · Full text
Animal studyMechanismReported positivePreclinical onlyTier 2 · animal
Cancer gene therapy · Jul 2024
glioblastoma
Researchers isolated HCMV strains from glioblastoma tissues and used them to infect human astrocytes, transforming these cells into CMV-elicited glioblastoma cells (CEGBCs) that formed spheroids. When CEGBC-derived spheroids were orthotopically xenografted into mice they produced glioblastoma-like tumors that were nestin-positive in invasive regions, surrounded by GFAP-positive reactive astrocytes, showed EGFR and cMet gene amplification, and contained HCMV IE and UL69 genes and proteins.
Key findings
- Three clinical HCMV strains isolated from glioblastoma tissues transformed human astrocytes into CMV-Elicited Glioblastoma Cells (CEGBCs).
- Spheroids generated from CEGBCs produced glioblastoma-like tumors in orthotopically xenografted mice.
- Resulting tumors were nestin-positive in invasive regions and were surrounded by GFAP-positive reactive astrocytes.
- Tumors showed EGFR and cMet gene amplification and detection of HCMV IE and UL69 genes and proteins.
Limitations: Preclinical study using transformed human cells and mouse xenografts; no clinical/human outcome data provided.; Abstract provides no sample sizes, quantitative incidence, or statistical analysis.; Only three clinical HCMV strains are reported to have been isolated and tested (limited strain sampling).; No mention of control groups or negative controls in the abstract..
AI summary of the abstract, human-reviewed · Jul 2026. Describes what this study reported, not medical advice. View on PubMed · Full text
ReviewInconclusiveLimited evidenceTier 4 · clinical
International journal of molecular sciences · May 2024 · narrative review
glioblastoma
This narrative review summarizes modern treatment approaches for glioblastoma, beyond the standard surgery, radiotherapy and chemotherapy. It describes advanced local therapies (gamma knife, proton beam, tumor-treating fields), targeted agents (EGFR, VEGF, RTK and PI3K inhibitors) and immune-based strategies (CAR-T, CAR-NK, dendritic cell vaccines, checkpoint inhibitors). The authors note advantages and disadvantages of each approach and highlight challenges such as blood-brain barrier penetration, neurological/systemic side effects, and tumor immune-escape mechanisms.
Studied with: surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy.
Key findings
- Standard multimodal treatment (surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy) yields limited survival in glioblastoma (background average survival cited as 12.1 to 14.6 months).
- Advanced/local therapies discussed include gamma knife therapy, proton beam therapy, and tumor-treating fields.
- Targeted therapies reviewed include EGFR and VEGF inhibitors, multiple RTK inhibitors, and PI3K pathway inhibitors.
- Immunotherapies covered include CAR-T cells, CAR-NK cells, dendritic cell approaches, and immune checkpoint inhibitors.
- Major challenges across methods include poor blood-brain barrier penetration, neurological and systemic side effects, and tumor escape mechanisms.
Limitations: Review article with no original patient-level or experimental data presented.; Narrative overview may not follow systematic review methodology (not stated in abstract).; Clinical efficacy and comparative effectiveness of the listed approaches are not established within this paper's abstract..
AI summary of the abstract, human-reviewed · Jul 2026. Describes what this study reported, not medical advice. View on PubMed · Full text
ReviewMixed resultsLimited evidenceTier 4 · clinical
Cancers · Apr 2024 · review
This narrative review summarizes emerging therapeutic approaches for glioblastoma, noting the disease's high heterogeneity and poor prognosis (approximately 12–18 months survival). It discusses limitations of conventional therapies (temozolomide, radiation, surgery) and reviews targeted pathways (PI3K, NF-kB, JAK-STAT, CK2, WNT, NOTCH, Hedgehog, TGF-beta) as well as oncolytic viruses and nanomaterials and their potential to improve blood–brain barrier penetration.
Key findings
- Glioblastoma is highly heterogeneous and remains the most malignant primary brain tumor with an approximate survival of 12–18 months.
- Conventional therapies (temozolomide, radiation, surgery) have limitations and there is currently no cure for glioblastoma.
- The review discusses targeted therapeutic approaches to PI3K, NF-kB, JAK-STAT, CK2, WNT, NOTCH, Hedgehog, and TGF-beta pathways.
- Oncolytic viruses and nanomaterials are described as highly novel applications, with progress in breaching the blood-brain barrier noted as a promising avenue for future therapies.
- Despite many clinical trials, prognosis remains poor and further development of targeted and combination treatments is needed.
Limitations: Narrative review without original primary data reported in this paper (no new patient- or trial-level results).; Abstract provides only a high-level overview; specific clinical trial results, doses, sample sizes, and statistical outcomes are not provided.; Heterogeneous evidence base implied (preclinical and clinical) but not specified or graded in abstract.; No quantitative synthesis (e.g., meta-analysis) or methods described in abstract..
AI summary of the abstract, human-reviewed · Jul 2026. Describes what this study reported, not medical advice. View on PubMed · Full text